get_app_endpoints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that results include aggregated performance metrics within the from_/to window and that returned endpoints feed other tools, but it does not cover limits, pagination, permissions, or other operational behavior. The output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is less necessary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and use case, then adds the follow-on tool context and parameter meanings. It is appropriately sized, though minor spelling errors and the Args block slightly reduce polish.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: the application ID, time window, and what the response represents. Missing details about pagination or operational limits are minor given the output schema and retrieval-only nature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains app_id as the Scout APM application ID and defines from_ and to as ISO 8601 start and end datetimes. It does not add constraints such as timezone handling or maximum window size, but all three required parameters are semantically covered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get all endpoints for an application, plus aggregated performance metrics for a time window. It is clear enough to distinguish this from app-level or endpoint-specific metric tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_app_metrics or get_endpoint_metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when the tool is useful: identifying high-throughput, high-latency, or high-error-rate endpoints across an application in one call. It also points to follow-on tools for endpoint-specific metrics, traces, and errors, but does not explicitly name those alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.